Oh this one is easy. Now, I'm not going to go citing sources, forgive me, but parenting has gotten a lot more permissive over the years as far as I see here at least. Fooooor example, when I was in school, it was my fault if I got a bad grade. Nowadays, it's apparently the teacher's. Here, that's an example.

Oh this one is easy. Now, I'm not going to go citing sources, forgive me, but parenting has gotten a lot more permissive over the years as far as I see here at least. Fooooor example, when I was in school, it was my fault if I got a bad grade. Nowadays, it's apparently the teacher's. Here, that's an example.

You're joking, right?

Honestly? I wish I was.

I am exaggerating with that picture a bit, yes, but I'm serious, it is there. The current generation of parents does raise, generally, their kids differently than the generation of my parents. Of course my only source for this is currently personal experience and anecdotal evidence.

Along the lines of talking to teachers who have been in the profession for a few decades. The general consensus seems to be that for a while now, the level of discipline in class has been dropping, and that children are left to their own devices more than they used to be. Note, I'm talking about "around here".

Still, it's not even a leap of logic to assume that the technological progress in the last few decades is going to change the way kids are brought up, for one. To say nothing of the shifts in the economy.

The major reason is the cartels losing their income (but as someone pointed out in the last thread, Cartels make most their money from heroin/cocaine), and the economic benefit of not having to stick these people in jail. I think it outweighs the dangers of having another substance on the market.

That is true, but did you know heroin and cocaine were pretty readily available before World War I? In fact, there were little care packages you could buy in Europe that you could send to soldiers that had coffee, cigarettes, food, heroin, and cocaine. It wasn't until it was made illegal that the crazy potent stuff started to come around, and only drug dealers mixed them with drain cleaner and all sorts of other shit so that they could sell more for less.

I can't say if things would go back to that World War I state if heroin and cocaine were legalized and regulated, but do you at least think there could be benefits to taking that power away from the cartels in exchange for regulating what can be in the stuff? Of course it wouldn't stop people from illegally selling more potent stuff, but it would certainly take the rug out from under cartels in a big way. And I think it's safe to say people who resort to drugs as a vice aren't doing it because they want to purchase things from criminals.

I am unsure of the other side-effects, though. I don't know what the big picture effect of the population would be. I personally dislike marijuana because the effects are so boring. Not my cup of tea. But I don't know how 300 million US citizens would react. Maybe they can handle casual use. Or maybe not.

Realitycrash:I am unsure of the other side-effects, though. I don't know what the big picture effect of the population would be. I personally dislike marijuana because the effects are so boring. Not my cup of tea. But I don't know how 300 million US citizens would react. Maybe they can handle casual use. Or maybe not.

Well, considering the staggering number of Americans who already casually use it (as demonstrated by the millions in jail for recreational use) I think the change wouldn't be as shocking as you might think. I feel like the kind of people who want to recreationally use marijuana are already doing it. I wouldn't doubt there would be some sort of increase if it were legalized (or at least decriminalized), but the way I see it there are the kind of people who like to have their mind altered by substances (whether it be alcohol, marijuana, etc) and the kind of people who don't like it. The kind of people who don't like it aren't very likely to change their mind whether or not it's legal, because its legality isn't the reason they aren't using it. There might be some increase at first just because people enjoy a good novelty in life, but once that initial spike settles I doubt recreational use will change THAT much, and there certainly won't be a "marijuana renaissance" where 60% of the population calls out of work just so they can sit on their front steps and smoke a doobie. Because as far as I know, nothing like that has happened in the other places it's been legalized/decriminalized.

And for the people who do use it, the legality doesn't really matter to them anyway. Sort of like Prohibition--was the majority of the drinking population steered away by its legality? No, they just found ways to get their booze.

Realitycrash:I am unsure of the other side-effects, though. I don't know what the big picture effect of the population would be. I personally dislike marijuana because the effects are so boring. Not my cup of tea. But I don't know how 300 million US citizens would react. Maybe they can handle casual use. Or maybe not.

Well, considering the staggering number of Americans who already casually use it (as demonstrated by the millions in jail for recreational use) I think the change wouldn't be as shocking as you might think. I feel like the kind of people who want to recreationally use marijuana are already doing it. I wouldn't doubt there would be some sort of increase if it were legalized (or at least decriminalized), but the way I see it there are the kind of people who like to have their mind altered by substances (whether it be alcohol, marijuana, etc) and the kind of people who don't like it. The kind of people who don't like it aren't very likely to change their mind whether or not it's legal, because its legality isn't the reason they aren't using it. There might be some increase at first just because people enjoy a good novelty in life, but once that initial spike settles I doubt recreational use will change THAT much, and there certainly won't be a "marijuana renaissance" where 60% of the population calls out of work just so they can sit on their front steps and smoke a doobie. Because as far as I know, nothing like that has happened in the other places it's been legalized/decriminalized.

And for the people who do use it, the legality doesn't really matter to them anyway. Sort of like Prohibition--was the majority of the drinking population steered away by its legality? No, they just found ways to get their booze.

Mm, maybe. However, I am certain that once said law has passed, Marijuana use will spike, and it will spike big.Why? Well, it will probably go something like this:"Huh, pot is legal now. You know, I have always wanted to try pot- Sure, what's stoping you now?"or"Ah, finally legal. Now I can smoke some pot again without feeling guilty if I get caught by my children/wife/whatever", etc.

Now, this spike will generate a load of new habitual users, and will spike the healthcare demand for said users as well.But in the end, it will stabilize as society adapts to the new culture.

Realitycrash:Mm, maybe. However, I am certain that once said law has passed, Marijuana use will spike, and it will spike big.Why? Well, it will probably go something like this:"Huh, pot is legal now. You know, I have always wanted to try pot- Sure, what's stoping you now?"or"Ah, finally legal. Now I can smoke some pot again without feeling guilty if I get caught by my children/wife/whatever", etc.

Now, this spike will generate a load of new habitual users, and will spike the healthcare demand for said users as well.But in the end, it will stabilize as society adapts to the new culture.

But like I said to generals, pot has already been legalized (or at least decriminalized) in places like the Netherlands and Belgium. Has that happened there? Sure you can assume these things will happen in a big way and that they will damage the fabric of society and whatnot, but it's not like pot has never been legalized before. You don't have to guess, just look at those countries and see what did (or didn't) happen to them.

Vegosiux:I am exaggerating with that picture a bit, yes, but I'm serious, it is there. The current generation of parents does raise, generally, their kids differently than the generation of my parents. Of course my only source for this is currently personal experience and anecdotal evidence.

Vegosiux:Along the lines of talking to teachers who have been in the profession for a few decades. The general consensus seems to be that for a while now, the level of discipline in class has been dropping, and that children are left to their own devices more than they used to be. Note, I'm talking about "around here".

People have always complained that newer generation do not have the same moral values as the older ones and it's usually just nostalgic bullshit.

Vegosiux:Still, it's not even a leap of logic to assume that the technological progress in the last few decades is going to change the way kids are brought up, for one. To say nothing of the shifts in the economy.

We haven't had an entire generation grow up completely interconnected since birth so I wouldn't know.

Vegosiux:I am exaggerating with that picture a bit, yes, but I'm serious, it is there. The current generation of parents does raise, generally, their kids differently than the generation of my parents. Of course my only source for this is currently personal experience and anecdotal evidence.

Wow, there's a lot more fight in these threads then I ever would have expected.

I've never touched any (non-perscribed) drug in my live save for alcohol and even then I never drink to excess. I was perscribed ritaline once (an amphetamine) and HATED what it did to me.

However, I am totally okay with pot being legal. Put the same restrictions on it as cigarettes; tax the fuck out of it, and I honestly see no problems. It'll reduce the non-violent prison population; it will reduce the need to support shady dealers to feed the habit, it's medically proven to at least be no worse than tobacco or alcohol. Everybody wins.

However, I am totally okay with pot being legal. Put the same restrictions on it as cigarettes; tax the fuck out of it, and I honestly see no problems. It'll reduce the non-violent prison population; it will reduce the need to support shady dealers to feed the habit, it's medically proven to at least be no worse than tobacco or alcohol. Everybody wins.

So that's on the ballot this year then? Sweet, I guess those petitions I signed worked. Pot should at the very least be decriminalized, if not made completely legal. I think most drugs should be made legal to use but not purchase or make with a limited state distribution. However, with pot I am in favor of full legalization.

I mean that until I know what you fucking mean by "grow up completely" there's no discussion value. So what do you mean? What does "grow up completely" mean? That they're of legal drinking age? That they moved out from living with their parents? That they started their own family? What are we talking about here?

Vegosiux:Got a source to back that up? Remember, anecdotal evidence is useless. Or does that only count for me?

Attributed to Socrates by Plato:

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt forauthority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longerrise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents,chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross theirlegs, and are tyrants over their teachers."

Thinking every new generation is the worst ever is older than feudalism.

generals3:And i never said you said you could smoke weed anytime and any place. I merely said that legalizing it is liberalizing the use of weed and that it is a bad thing. A liberalizing trend sends the message that the substance is now considered less bad than before. And that in my opinion is enough to say no to legalizing weed. We aren't currently fighting the use of tobacco through restrictions and taxation to at the same time satisfy dope heads, that seems entirely counter-productive.

Oh good Lord. Do you know anything about what you're talking about? And could you stop talking about "liberals" for like five minutes? It's not helping your case and is only making you seem like those kinds of conservatives/Republicans who fight against things just because the other side likes it.

Cigarettes are being fought because secondhand smoke is very harmful to other people, especially children. I don't know about the smoke that comes from marijuana, but I'm sure if it's the same kind of bad stuff then it would become subject to the same regulations. The government is not obligated to care about what people put into their own lungs, and they will certainly never make it totally illegal because they get way too much tax money and the tobacco industry lobbies too much to let it happen. But they are obligated to protect other people and children who involuntarily become victims of its effects. And again, nobody is saying they shouldn't regulate against those kinds of secondhand effects with marijuana. And I'm certain they will when the time comes, if for no other reason than to cover their asses if something does happen.

Again, your argument is based purely on principle. There isn't any logic there, only spite. "We're fighting against cigarettes, so we're not about to give anything to those damned potheads!" Imagine if we did this with other things: "We're fighting against Islam in the middle east, so why should we let them be Muslim over here?!"

weed dosent have to be smoked though.saying that most people do smoke it, I wonder if legalising it would increase smoking related illnesses?

Vegosiux:I mean that until I know what you fucking mean by "grow up completely" there's no discussion value. So what do you mean? What does "grow up completely" mean? That they're of legal drinking age? That they moved out from living with their parents? That they started their own family? What are we talking about here?

That they grew up completly interconnected with eachother.

Vegosiux:That claim, as you see, has not been made by Vegosiux, so Vegosiux does not have to prove it.

I was pointing out that numerous people have claimed that newer generations are worse than older ones but never actually managed to prove it was so. It's moral panic for the sake of moral panic and unless you've got some hard data to show otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.

Vegosiux:PS: My mother always said "What, if that kid jumped through the window and into a pile of crap you'd do it too just because he did it first?" Make of that what you will.

Vegosiux:I mean that until I know what you fucking mean by "grow up completely" there's no discussion value. So what do you mean? What does "grow up completely" mean? That they're of legal drinking age? That they moved out from living with their parents? That they started their own family? What are we talking about here?

That they grew up completly interconnected with eachother.

Oh "completely interconnected", not "completely grown up". Myeah, I blame the english language for that one.

And even if we say "internet", that has been around for long enough for some time, and quite enough for a generation to grow up from where they start being aware they're an independent person and even having a use for internet interconnectedness to at least legal age.

There's not much use for any kind of interconnectedness while you're still a drooling, whining, obnoxious brat that doesn't even know it exists.

Apologies to anyone offended by what I just said in any way whatsoever.

I was pointing out that numerous people have claimed that newer generations are worse than older ones but never actually managed to prove it was so. It's moral panic for the sake of moral panic and unless you've got some hard data to show otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.

Wait, you're accusing me of having just made the entire thing up even after I stated where it was coming from? If you say "For all I know, yes", I suppose I'll just have to roll my eyes furiously and menacingly at you.

In any case, was an example and not an argument to begin with, and I'm not going to push it any further.

carlsberg export:weed dosent have to be smoked though.saying that most people do smoke it, I wonder if legalising it would increase smoking related illnesses?

And alcohol doesn't have to be drunk, that doesn't mean it can't be regulated. And if you think marijuana and tobacco give off the same things when being smoked...then I'm afraid it's pretty clear you don't know a lot about marijuana :-\

Or, if you want to continue this discussion in a more interesting way: Why should cigarettes remain legal? Give me your opinion on that.

Simple. I would love my govt to ban cigarettes.

EDIT: about the rest of your post. While the intention of the government are often all but charitable at the end, it us up to us citizens to see the good side in it. I see it as a fight for our health.

So, you're okay with this because you've convinced yourself the government has intentions you know for a fact it doesn't? Okay, I guess...

Well let's be honest here. We all know the vast majority of the politicians couldn't care less about you or me. All they care about is money, votes and sometimes the fame. Might as well act naively.

And i believe that that mere users of marijuana should be heavily fined. Those who grow it or sell it should get into jail.

Me and my hobby of brewing toxins out of honey for people to drink thank you for continuing the cultural hippocrisy that makes me a celebrated wine maker, and a pot grower a filthy criminal who deserves prison time even though we both grow poisons.

What is it you brew out of honey?

And i don't care about it being hypocritical or not. I believe it makes sense from a pragmatic point of view. Banning alcohol or anything similar at this moment is impossible. And we shouldn't go in the wrong direction when it comes to drugs. Might as well make hard drugs legal too than. We should aim to eventually (we may never get to that point but going in that direction is what matters) get rid from those poisons not spread them around more.

Even knowing what happened the last time a widely-used and socially-accepted vice was banned? Lordy. I mean, I don't like cigarettes either, but it would take quite a bit for me to be deluded enough to actually be convinced such a ban would work.

So, you're okay with this because you've convinced yourself the government has intentions you know for a fact it doesn't? Okay, I guess...

Well let's be honest here. We all know the vast majority of the politicians couldn't care less about you or me. All they care about is money, votes and sometimes the fame. Might as well act naively.

This is almost incredible, actually. You've actually built yourself a bubble of logic that absolutely does not work, and are now hiding in it because apparently you don't care or just don't want to be bothered to think it through. You accept the government's conflicting stances on tobacco and marijuana because you believe the government is looking out for your health, yet you know for a fact that isn't their intention at all. So is accepting that just easier than thinking about any of the questions I posed to you or something? If you want to stop this discussion, just say so. You don't have to build a fortress of shaky logic to hide in it pretending it works until I frustrated enough to give up.

Even knowing what happened the last time a widely-used and socially-accepted vice was banned? Lordy. I mean, I don't like cigarettes either, but it would take quite a bit for me to be deluded enough to actually be convinced such a ban would work.

So, you're okay with this because you've convinced yourself the government has intentions you know for a fact it doesn't? Okay, I guess...

Well let's be honest here. We all know the vast majority of the politicians couldn't care less about you or me. All they care about is money, votes and sometimes the fame. Might as well act naively.

This is almost incredible, actually. You've actually built yourself a bubble of logic that absolutely does not work, and are now hiding in it because apparently you don't care or just don't want to be bothered to think it through. You accept the government's conflicting stances on tobacco and marijuana because you believe the government is looking out for your health, yet you know for a fact that isn't their intention at all. So is accepting that just easier than thinking about any of the questions I posed to you or something? If you want to stop this discussion, just say so. You don't have to build a fortress of shaky logic to hide in it pretending it works until I frustrated enough to give up.

Oh but i know it wouldn't work straight away but that's why we're building towards smoking becoming a rarity through anti tobacco campaigns, taxes and regulations. Eventually a ban could become possible. My main point was: i am not in favor of legal tobacco, it's not something i would strive for.

And what are you babbling about shaky logic and bubbles or what not? I'm not deluded about our politician's intentions. Hence i analyze things on my own and see where the policies lead to. The fact our politicians don't care about our health is irrelevant. Their policies help it and that's it. It's the result which matters. If the govt's intentions were even remotely relevant we could dismiss any govt policy. Welfare is "bribing the populace", wars are all about money or influence, foreign aid is used to get a foothold in foreign countries, etc.

And as such when i said "the govt wants..." i was referring to what is achieved with the policies. No one could ever claim with certainty what a government really wants since politicians are known professional liars.

PS: is it so hard to believe/understand that i want to strive towards less toxic substances going around and that i firmly believe that keeping illegal toxic substance illegal is necessary to achieve that? And all that blabity about other substances being legal is irrelevant. One evil doesn't excuse an other.

generals3:Oh but i know it wouldn't work straight away but that's why we're building towards smoking becoming a rarity through anti tobacco campaigns, taxes and regulations. Eventually a ban could become possible. My main point was: i am not in favor of legal tobacco, it's not something i would strive for.

And what are you babbling about shaky logic and bubbles or what not? I'm not deluded about our politician's intentions. Hence i analyze things on my own and see where the policies lead to. The fact our politicians don't care about our health is irrelevant. Their policies help it and that's it. It's the result which matters. If the govt's intentions were even remotely relevant we could dismiss any govt policy. Welfare is "bribing the populace", wars are all about money or influence, foreign aid is used to get a foothold in foreign countries, etc.

And as such when i said "the govt wants..." i was referring to what is achieved with the policies. No one could ever claim with certainty what a government really wants since politicians are known professional liars.

After I explained to you the reason the government is so concerned about tobacco on the surface, yet never outright bans it (and never will) is because of their balancing act between the lobbying of the tobacco industry, the lobbying of the anti-drug groups, and giving the tobacco industry enough room to breathe so as not to crash its multi-billion dollar place in our economy, you replied with this:

EDIT: about the rest of your post. While the intention of the government are often all but charitable at the end, it us up to us citizens to see the good side in it. I see it as a fight for our health.

Do you even see that? "It's up to us citizens to see the good side in it." No it's not. It's up to us citizens to know exactly what they're doing and why, and not delude ourselves into false chains of logic just because we either agree with them, or we agree enough that we're willing to turn our brains off so they can do the thinking for us. And then there's the fact that you won't even admit your argument against pot makes you sense. I asked you to prove that pot is more harmful than cigarettes, and you won't. I asked you prove other countries that have already legalized it have been harmed by it, and you have not. You have not offered a single scrap of evidence of this severe harm you are so convinced exists. So excuse me if I'm a bit concerned about the logic and how easily you're willing to lie to yourself about the government's intentions, as you pose an argument based on nothing but hot air.

And then there's this:

PS: is it so hard to believe/understand that i want to strive towards less toxic substances going around and that i firmly believe that keeping illegal toxic substance illegal is necessary to achieve that? And all that blabity about other substances being legal is irrelevant. One evil doesn't excuse an other.

Yeah, it is hard to believe that, because it's not the government's job to keep us from harming ourselves. Harming others, yes. But ourselves? That's just idiotic. The government has no place to stop me from inhaling toxic fumes into my own lungs, as much as it has no place to keep somebody from going to McDonalds and eating 10 Big Macs. It's their job to protect people from involuntarily being harmed by the actions of others, but when it comes to what people are happily doing to themselves there is a very fine line they must walk. You are free to not put any toxic substances in your lungs, but your rights end where the rights of another begin.

And if government-run standards of personal health are what you want, then just know you're going to have to go a lot further than banning drugs and alcohol to achieve your goal. Fattening foods, unhealthy lifestyles, unsafe sexual practices...there are a lot of things people do that are harmful to themselves, and involve disease and toxins, which means you've got a lot of regulations to uphold if you want everybody to be all healthy and toxin-free.

carlsberg export:weed dosent have to be smoked though.saying that most people do smoke it, I wonder if legalising it would increase smoking related illnesses?

And alcohol doesn't have to be drunk, that doesn't mean it can't be regulated. And if you think marijuana and tobacco give off the same things when being smoked...then I'm afraid it's pretty clear you don't know a lot about marijuana :-\

yeah that's why I said weed dosent have to be smoked, I WAS backing your argument.I never said they gave off the same stuff when smoked.even so, you honestly think that breathing in smoke isn't harmful? Even if it's not mixed with tobacco (which a fair amount of users do) it's still smoke and therefore can't be good for you.

please don't make up things I didn't say like it can't be regulated, I was actually agreeing with you.

carlsberg export:weed dosent have to be smoked though.saying that most people do smoke it, I wonder if legalising it would increase smoking related illnesses?

And alcohol doesn't have to be drunk, that doesn't mean it can't be regulated. And if you think marijuana and tobacco give off the same things when being smoked...then I'm afraid it's pretty clear you don't know a lot about marijuana :-\

yeah that's why I said weed dosent have to be smoked, I WAS backing your argument.I never said they gave off the same stuff when smoked.even so, you honestly think that breathing in smoke isn't harmful? Even if it's not mixed with tobacco (which a fair amount of users do) it's still smoke and therefore can't be good for you.

please don't make up things I didn't say like it can't be regulated, I was actually agreeing with you.

Okay, I guess I didn't understand what you were saying so I just filled in the gaps myself, lol. I read "weed doesn't have to be smoked, though" as "even if you regulate the smoking of weed that won't cover all of its uses," and I took the rest as you making them out to be the same thing as cigarettes.

And to answer your question, no, I have no doubt marijuana has some long-term effects in the long run. However, the most in long-term effects I've seen is mental problems, not physical problems. Cigarettes cause lung damage because of all the shit in them, but marijuana is full of a different kind of shit that the body processes differently. I've never heard of marijuana causing the same types of lung problems as cigarettes on their own, but I guess you could look it up. Again, there are several countries that have already legalized or decriminalized it.

Can we at least legalize hemp? I get that people don't want another drug, but why not a fiber? Farmers can't grow hemp in the USA, and all it's used for is paper, textiles, rope, food items (e.g., hempseed tea), and other products. Hemp products are legal in the US (or people just turn the other cheek). So why not legalize the production of it? Farming could stand to become more lucrative.

After I explained to you the reason the government is so concerned about tobacco on the surface, yet never outright bans it (and never will) is because of their balancing act between the lobbying of the tobacco industry, the lobbying of the anti-drug groups, and giving the tobacco industry enough room to breathe so as not to crash its multi-billion dollar place in our economy, you replied with this:

EDIT: about the rest of your post. While the intention of the government are often all but charitable at the end, it us up to us citizens to see the good side in it. I see it as a fight for our health.

Do you even see that? "It's up to us citizens to see the good side in it." No it's not. It's up to us citizens to know exactly what they're doing and why, and not delude ourselves into false chains of logic just because we either agree with them, or we agree enough that we're willing to turn our brains off so they can do the thinking for us. And then there's the fact that you won't even admit your argument against pot makes you sense. I asked you to prove that pot is more harmful than cigarettes, and you won't. I asked you prove other countries that have already legalized it have been harmed by it, and you have not. You have not offered a single scrap of evidence of this severe harm you are so convinced exists. So excuse me if I'm a bit concerned about the logic and how easily you're willing to lie to yourself about the government's intentions, as you pose an argument based on nothing but hot air.

Maybe it's because i'm too cynical but yes it us up to citizens to identify the positives of policies because otherwise it's quite depressing because negativity can found at the core of every single policy, but than again the US is the country where talk shows, talking about politics and how every political action they disagree with is pure evil, make fortunes. And when it comes to how harmful weed is. Like i said , i do not know if it's more harmful than cigarettes because you're comparing a physically severely damaging substance with one that is mostly mentally destructive. And since i'm totally against the sale of tobacco i don't even see why i should have to provide you with any evidence it is more harmful.

And it is still too soon to determine the effects of legalization of weed, we would need to analyze the effects it has on the perception of weed on society after years and years. And I don't want to risk such an experiment. What if weed becomes widely used and with widely i mean almost as much as alcohol. What than? How will you be able to go back? You won't. You will be screwed. If the legalization experiment turns sour there is no going back. You may be willing to risk it for the pot heads i'm not. My concerns is the well being of society, not the individual desire to intoxicate oneself.

And then there's this:

PS: is it so hard to believe/understand that i want to strive towards less toxic substances going around and that i firmly believe that keeping illegal toxic substance illegal is necessary to achieve that? And all that blabity about other substances being legal is irrelevant. One evil doesn't excuse an other.

Yeah, it is hard to believe that, because it's not the government's job to keep us from harming ourselves. Harming others, yes. But ourselves? That's just idiotic. The government has no place to stop me from inhaling toxic fumes into my own lungs, as much as it has no place to keep somebody from going to McDonalds and eating 10 Big Macs. It's their job to protect people from involuntarily being harmed by the actions of others, but when it comes to what people are happily doing to themselves there is a very fine line they must walk. You are free to not put any toxic substances in your lungs, but your rights end where the rights of another begin.

And if government-run standards of personal health are what you want, then just know you're going to have to go a lot further than banning drugs and alcohol to achieve your goal. Fattening foods, unhealthy lifestyles, unsafe sexual practices...there are a lot of things people do that are harmful to themselves, and involve disease and toxins, which means you've got a lot of regulations to uphold if you want everybody to be all healthy and toxin-free.

Actually i do firmly believe that it is the governments job to ensure people act in the best interest of society. For some things it is less important and for others less easy, but we should strive towards a healthy society and not commit suicide in the name of freedom (actually i find the fight for Order to be much more important). The problem with certain toxic substances is that they can be used to harm others even if collateral damage is punished. Driving high for instance is dangerous and while you will tell me that you don't want that to be legal, the more weed there is around the higher the odds people will use it and than drive. If parents smoke weed at their home they might influence their kids and increase the odds they start smoking pot. And for that matter how will you prevent people abusing narcotics in their homes? The only way to prevent that is by destroying the supply and demand.

And let's look at other effects that will effect society. I know students who went down the crapper because of weed. Their studies cost the state 20k euro per year. By failing due to weed they are f*cking the tax payers. There are many ways with which abuse of narcotics affects everyone indirectly.

It's good to see that several states ended up getting on the ballot for this year. I helped the drive for petition-signing in my home state of Michigan, though we ended up not attaining enough signatures.

Once one of these states vote yes, though, it'll be an easy time to finally have legalization here and in other states.

I see, within ten years, legalization will happen in at least ten states, and we can finally start to end the War on Drugs bullshit and all of the propaganda that labels marijuana as somehow more dangerous than alcohol, despite not being toxic for the average person and also not being nearly as likely to cause a fatal car accident (or death in general).

On top of its many medicinal uses like the slowing of tumor growth for certain types of cancers.

Mentally, is it harmful for certain types of users? Likely, sure, just like some users of alcohol develop extreme alcoholism. Some marijuana users seem to be predisposed to developing schizophrenia, for example. Does that mean it should be illegal? Fuck no. The only reason it became illegal to begin with was through deceitful propaganda and lobbying from the textile/other industries, and is why non-smokable hemp is also illegal.

Legalize it, and tax it if that's what it takes to get public support, but at the very least we need to not imprison huge portions of our population for having a fucking plant.

Or, if you want to continue this discussion in a more interesting way: Why should cigarettes remain legal? Give me your opinion on that.

Simple. I would love my govt to ban cigarettes.

Your position is now simply too extreme, man. Do you support banning alcohol? Should we also ban double bacon cheeseburgers and soda pop? Should the only legal sweetener by Splenda? I mean, if you start with narcotics, and then use that logic to jump to cigarettes, where does it stop? How do you logically stop yourself from sliding down that slippery slope?

In my opinion, the role of government is prevent people from infringing upon the rights of others, and not preventing me from using nicotine and alcohol responsibly to unwind or as social lubricants.

If I am made aware about the dangers of smoking or drinking or eating fatty, sugary foods with adequate education, and I decide that I like the way it feels more than I like preventing potential long term health consequences, am I not entitled to make that decision for myself?